|
2006 In January, CCFCC
funded the cost for an engineering consultant to
participate as a member of a project team managed by
HCFCD’s Planning Dept, which recalibrates the computer
modeling used to determine the floodplains in the
Cypress Creek watershed. This year-long effort was
essentially completed by January 2007.
HCFCD completed on-site
construction of the repair and redesign to correct a
major erosion bank stabilization project on Cypress
Creek intended to remedy dangerous conditions to the
public at Meyer Park. CCFCC triggered this $1
million-plus repair project.
TxDOT’s design effort on the NW
Corridor (U.S. Highway 290) expansion project reached
the stage where it is appropriate to begin coordination
meetings. The purpose: To address CCFCC’s 2003 request
to Commissioner Steve Radack seeking his political
leadership and support to form a joint partnership of
appropriate state and county agencies wherein ROW for
roadway expansion and ROW for regional detention basins
in the Upper Watershed be simultaneously acquired and
the excavated dirt be used for highway fill
construction.
CCFCC initiated a conceptual
work-in-progress and advocacy plan for a system of
trails interlinking anchor parks and preserves along a
37-mile corridor of the main Cypress Creek channel.
The Coalition also initiated
discussions with the developer of Bridgeland (a master
planned community with six miles of Cypress Creek
frontage) to tie their extensive trails system to the
Cypress Creek Greenway.
2005
The first “Urban
Stormwater Management Study” Stakeholders Committee
meeting was held followed by extended delays (a second
meeting originally planned to happen in six months
continues to slip schedule. It has not been held as of
January 2007).
CCFCC participated in organizing
the Hewlett-Packard Alliance, which negotiated the
donation of 100 acres of parkland along Cypress Creek
near State Highway 249 (estimated value: $10 million).
The conceptual “Interim Land Use
Plan” to facilitate construction of a stormwater
detention facility and accommodation of future Harris
County Precinct 3 park facilities was unveiled. Undertaken by HCFCD’s Environmental Department at CCFCC’s request, a
noted landscape architect was hired to develop a plan in
lieu of waiting several years while the excavated hole
silted in from flood events. The subject tract consists
of approximately 163 acres located at the confluence of
Cypress Creek and Little Cypress Creek on the west side
of North Eldridge Blvd. CCFCC is the main organization
representing the community. The estimated 3,030
acre-feet capacity is a significant shortfall from the
15,930 acre-feet recommended in this reach of the main
channel (Per the l984 TC&B watershed master plan adopted
by Commissioners Court).
FEMA denied the three major appeals
covering their newly plotted floodplains in the Cypress
Creek watershed. This included the one filed by CCFCC.
CCFCC argued the case, successfully overcoming FEMA’s
position that the requested recalibration “is not
warranted.” However, FEMA advised HCFCD
and CCFCC that they could not wait for the remodeling
process to be carried out and would therefore proceed
with publication of the erroneous maps, issue a Letter
of Determination accordingly, and that the desired
recalibration should be accomplished locally, and then
presented to them through a Letter of Map Change
process.
In the FEMA/HCFCD “Home Buy-out”
program to reduce flood losses within the Cypress Creek
watershed, six additional homes were purchased during
the year. This brought the total buy-out since inception
to 216 homes with fifty-four additional pending
applications in process.
In November, the CCFCC Board was
advised by HCFCD management that the Part 5, overall
watershed planning process was ongoing with
“reconnaissance/conceptual level planning expected to be
completed in 2006, and that an overall “detailed
watershed plan was to be completed in 2007/2008.” (Note:
In January 2007, an informal review indicated this would
require another two to three years to complete).
In an end-of-the-year assessment
covering preservation, CCFCC was advised that the Katy
Prairie Conservancy has acquired 17,000 acres of their
50,000-acre goal in the Upper Watershed. HCFCD advised
CCFCC they do not intend to acquire the 20,000 acres of
land for flood mitigation detention as recommended in
the l984 master plan; that it is “a guide for furthering
the infrastructure whether that is done by HCFCD,
developers, and/or other governmental entities that are
building things like roads.” They further advised that
a total of 3,204 acres had been acquired in fee or
flooding easements in the Upper Watershed at location
K-500-07-00.
2004 CCFCC’s efforts to
identify funding sources for multi-use flood
mitigation/recreation trails and parks was rewarded when
Representative Bill Calamari, Sen. Jon Lindsay, and Joe
B. Allen succeeded in helping pass Senate Bill 624 (a
State of Texas constitutional amendment changing Chapter
49 of the Water Code), which allowed the legislature to
authorize certain MUDs to develop and finance parks and
recreational facilities. Harris County is one of the
eleven Texas counties affected.
The Criteria Manual for the
Design of Flood Control and Drainage Facilities in
Harris County, adopted by Commissioners Court in
l984, was replaced in October by a revised manual.
During the public review and comment period which
preceded adoption, CCFCC and other organizations took
a strong position that the regulatory maximum allowed
detention outflow release rate for large developments
was excessive. It exceeded the regulatory rate
applicable in Ft. Bend County (and certain other
locations) by a factor of ten and was deemed to be a
contributor to out-of-banks flooding. The effort to
reduce the release rate was unsuccessful, thereby
allowing the regulatory release rate to remain unchanged
at the same level as had been allowed since 1984.
Several well-established non-profit
organizations and community leaders within Harris County
sought Commissioners Court approval for technical peer
review/recommendations on the detention release rate by
an expert independent of HCFCD, the City of Houston, and
Harris County. A $100,000 proposal to do this was
obtained from Rice University, but it was refuted by
Harris County elected officials. Negotiations concluded
with a compromise agreement wherein Commissioners Court
approved an undertaking in which Harris County, the City
of Houston, TxDOT and HCFCD came together to perform
what is known as the “Urban Stormwater Management
Study.” The published purpose of this $2 million-plus,
2-year project is to: 1) “Confirm or recommend updates
to existing drainage policy, regulation, and design
criteria based on technical analysis of the elements
that make up the urban storm water conveyance system,”
and 2) “Improve communication with the community
regarding flooding and drainage issues.” CCFCC became a
participating “Stakeholders Committee” member.
Planning for the Cypress Creek
Greenway project began.
CCFCC funded a technical
review/analysis of the hydrologic and hydraulic models
used to calculate new floodplain locations and depths
for the floodplains in the Cypress Creek Watershed as
shown on FEMA’s new maps. This analysis identified
significant inaccuracies in predicted floodwater levels
in the Katy-Hockley area resulting in an appeal filed on
behalf of the watershed communities. Appeals were also
filed by the Sierra Club and Harris County Voters
Against Flooding.
2003 In February, a final
report was published, and in April, the Stakeholders
committee meeting was held concerning the TWDB/HCFCD
engineering analysis and recommendations covering the
nine principal Cypress Creek tributaries. The plan was
later deemed to be invalidated (to an unknown extent)
because, contrary to a CCFCC recommendation, regulations
was not developed to avoid tracts of land designated for
use as key regional detention sites from being
developed.
Houston Endowment awarded a $20,000
grant to CCFCC to assist in financing CCFCC’s share of
the cost for the “Future Conditions Flood Hazard
Boundary” computer modeling/analysis.
2002 The HCFCD Planning
Department agreed with CCFCC’s request to undertake a
computer modeling study to simulate where the 100-year
floodplains (as designated in the TSARP project
floodplain maps) will grow in size under full urban
development conditions. This study, which encompasses
the entire Cypress Creek watershed, will produce
information not otherwise available that will be
critical to long-term flood protection planning. It can
also be used to measure the effectiveness of proposed
regional detention basins and other flood mitigation
measures prior to such measures being constructed
This computer modeling, called the
Future Conditions Flood Hazard Boundary Project,
will begin in February 2004 when TSARP’s basic data
becomes available. The findings will be utilized in
determining the recommended plan and costs under Part 5
and Part 6 respectively of the Cypress Creek
Watershed Stormwater Master Plan.
The Corps of Engineers extended an
offer to CCFCC to participate in a reassessment study up
to $5 million subject to CCFCC locating a government
sponsor. HCFCD unofficially refused to participate (for
unknown reasons).
2001 The June 2001 Tropical
Storm Allison disaster was the impetus for a joint FEMA/
HCFCD undertaking to update all Harris County FIRMs and
related flood hazard maps. Preliminary maps were
expected to be released for public review in January
2004. This $25 million project called the “Tropical
Storm Allison Recovery Project” (TSARP) included the
entire Cypress Creek Watershed and constituted Part 4 of
the Cypress Creek Watershed Stormwater Management
Plan. (visit
www.tsarp.org ).
CCFCC, participating as a member
of TSARP’s “Stakeholders Committee,” expressed concerns
to FEMA and HCFCD about the flood maps being produced
based on urban development as of 2001.
HCFCD announced they were beginning
a five-year regional planning program for the watershed
called the Cypress Creek Watershed Stormwater
Management Plan consisting of six parts scheduled to
be completed by the end of 2005. The “Primary
Tributaries Study” being developed under the joint HCFCD/Texas
Water Development Board (see description under 2000
below) would constitute Part 1 and Part 2.
The Texas Legislature passed House
Bill 1842, which created the West Harris County Regional
Water Authority. WHCRWA was given the responsibility for
halting land subsidence in West Harris County, which
includes that portion of the Cypress Creek watershed not
already encompassed by the North Harris County Regional
Water Authority.
2000
In February, the CCFCC
determined that the Texas Water Development Board had
grant money available for “contracts to develop flood
protection plans for areas in Texas.” The CCFCC
encouraged “cash-strapped” HCFCD to apply, in part due
to “accelerating land subsidence in Northwest Harris
County during the last decade, which is increasing at an
even greater rate due to the rapid formation of new MUDs
created to provide well water for urban development in
the area.” One of several reasons for concern:
“Subsidence has not been programmed into the computer
models used for predicting flood elevation levels in
this watershed.”
A grant application was
successfully submitted resulting in the Texas Water
Development Board and HCFCD co-sponsoring a flood
reduction study plan covering nine primary tributary
streams in the watershed. The goal was to develop
multi-purpose water corridors for stormwater detention,
recreation, parks, and wildlife preservation. The study
was completed in March 2003 with a recommended $350
million plan published for public review and comment .
CCFCC participates in this project as a member of the
“Citizens Advisory Committee.”
1999
The Texas Legislature
passed House Bill 2965 creating the North Harris County
Regional Water Authority (subject to voter ratification
which occurred in January 2000).
A grass roots movement of
community residents and organizations (triggered by the
October 1998 flood) resulted in the formation of the
Cypress Creek Flood Control Coalition (CCFCC). Its
Charter reflected their conclusion that land subsidence,
stormwater flooding, and greenway preservation
throughout the length of the watershed’s riparian
corridor were interrelated issues solvable in concert
with each other
1998
A major flooding event
in October (resulting in the flooding of an even greater
number of homes and neighborhoods than in the October
1994 flood), triggered an undertaking by watershed
residents and community organizations to determine why
Harris County officials were not providing effective
flood mitigation measures. They were told, “We don’t
have the money to do what you want.” This led to a grass
roots formation of the Cypress Creek Flood Control
Coalition (CCFCC) a year later.
The Corps of Engineers GRR report
was completed and published in July. It stated that the
purpose of this reevaluation “was to re-evaluate the
viability of providing flood protection measures to
attenuate flooding based on the current desires of the
local sponsor,” expressed when the approved project
funded in l988 was not implemented. USACE
estimated that there were 1,500 structures within the
100-year floodplain (Source:
Water Ways, published by HCFCD, October 1997).
In 1999, at CCFCC’s request, the Harris-Galveston Area
Council (H-GAC) cross-checked the validity of USACE’s
number. Their study revealed approximately 5,424
structures in the 100-year floodplain. The basis for
this significant variance, perhaps due to “mapped”
versus slab elevations, has not been studied by CCFCC.
The GRR report stated that “the
full range of nonstructural measures were evaluated for
possible use,” which included raising structures and
buy-out for the 50%, 20%, 10%, and 2% floodplains. The
number of structures that would be subjected to floods
of the different frequencies resulted in the following
findings.
·
50% floodplain (2-year frequency) - one
damageable structure
20% floodplain ( 5-year frequency) -six
damageable structures
10% floodplain (10-year frequency) - 189
damageable structures
2% floodplain ( 50-year frequency) - 337
damageable structures
Note: Watershed homes that have
flooded in recent storms where CCFCC has obtained
records totaled:
·
May 1989 - 550 homes flooded
June 1989 - 270 homes flooded
October l994 - 410 homes flooded
October 1998 - 275 homes flooded
June 2001 - Over 1,000 homes flooded (HCFCD
estimate)
(Source:
Oct 1998: Fax from HCFCD to CCFCC dated 01/04/99.
Previous numbers per Water Ways, published by
HCFCD, October 1997)
Note: HCFCD reports that flood
reduction actions resulting from the USACE participation
on Cypress Creek have been the acquisition/demolition of
thirty-four of the most flood prone homes along the main
channel. In March 2003, HCFCD reported that under the
Home Buy-out Program, about 150 of the most flood-prone
houses along Cypress Creek had been acquired; that the
current five-year capital funds plan had $6 million
specifically programmed for continuing buy-out in the
Cypress Creek Watershed over the next five- year period;
that the five-year capital funds plan had $60 million
for county-wide buy-out not earmarked for any specific
watershed, and that a pending application to FEMA
included about 100 candidate houses in the Cypress Creek
Watershed at a cost of about $17 million.”
(Reference: Flow, a
report enclosed with a letter dated February 27, 2003,
to CCFCC from Michael D. Talbott, Director, HCFCD).
1997 The Corps of Engineers
announced their general re-evaluation study has been
completed; that no structural plans met federal
benefit-cost requirements; and that they would only
participate in the Cypress Creek watershed on the basis
of “buy-out” of homes that have frequent flood damage.
1995 Turner Collie & Braden
completed work and issued a report to HCFCD in January
titled, “The Cypress Creek Flood Control Study,”
which consisted of preliminary hydraulic and hydrologic
analysis of flood control alternatives formulated for
specific selected “high damage” areas between the mouth
of Cypress Creek and Cypress Bend. The selected areas
had been identified in pre-project reconnaissance
studies by USACE and HCFCD engineers (as listed below
under the USACE 3rd project authorized in
1994). Structural alternatives were recommended for
three sites (Site “B” with a B/C of 1.37, Site “D” with
a B/C of 1.82 and alternate at B/C of 0.84. and Site “G”
with a B/C of 1.96).
1994 The Harris County
Commissioners Court authorized a third study project by
the Corps of Engineers referred to as the “General
Reevaluation” study. The goal: “To define an
implementable flood damage reduction plan that meets the
criteria for Federal participation” (i.e., is
economically justified plus environmentally and
technically feasible). This third approach was to
selectively focus on specific “high damage” reaches and
develop a specific plan for each of the ten reaches
which had been selected. They were:
·
Reach A: Between Cypresswood and Treaschwig
Reach B: Upstream of Aldine-Westfield
Reach C: Upstream of I-45
Reach D: Between I-45 and Kuykendahl
Reach E: Upstream of Kuykendahl
Reach F: Between SH-249 and Grant
Reach G: Between Grant and Huffmeister
Reach H: Near Huffmeister
Reach I: Downstream of Telge
Reach J: Between Telge and U.S. 290
Mouth to U.S. 290: (Home Buy-outs)
The study was to be in two phases.
USACE’s report issued in July 1998 stated the primary
purpose of the reevaluation, “was to reevaluate the
viability of providing flood protection measures to
attenuate flooding based on the current desires of the
local sponsor”…these being as expressed when the
approved project funded in l988 was not implemented.
The General Reevaluation Report
and Environmental Assessment and Appendices report
dated July 1998 concluded that “the most cost effective,
implementable plan, which satisfies the identified
planning objectives, was found to be a flood damage
reduction plan that consists of mandatory permanent
evacuation of the 20% floodplain. The plan has a
benefit-cost ratio of 1.3 and would involve the removal
of forty structures at an estimated cost of $4.9 million
(1997 dollars).” The Federal/HCFCD share would be $3.7
million and $1.2 million, respectively (Note:
Turner Collie & Braden also undertook a study which
paralleled the USACE general reevaluation study. See
1995 above).
A major flooding event occurred in
October resulting in flood waters entering the homes of
residents throughout the 27-mile length of the watershed
between its mouth and upstream to the US 290 bridge
crossing.
1992
Jones & Carter. Inc.
issued the study, Implementation Plan and Strategy
for Cypress Creek Watershed, for HCFCD which
presented an interim implementation plan and strategy to
allow continued urbanization in the watershed. This plan
recommends the use of a series of controlled floodplain
storage projects on publicly owned land along Cypress
Creek. The Watershed Management Strategy establishes
seven management zones to oversee future development and
the regional plan of improvements along Cypress Creek
(The regional plan of improvements was originally
identified in the Master Drainage Plan for the
Cypress Creek Watershed, Turner Collie & Braden,
Inc. l984 plan). The management strategy recommended
that the regional plan of improvements in the original
master plan be reexamined and updated as necessary for
current technical social, environmental, and fiscal
considerations. (Source:
Flood Protection Planning Grant Application, March
30, 2000, pg. 13, submitted by HCFCD in association with
CivilTech Engineering, Inc. to the Texas Water
Development Board).
Corps of Engineer activities were
suspended when HCFCD did not support the project being
developed. “Their expressed desire was for a plan less
structural in nature, less comprehensive, and more
environmentally sensitive.”
(Source: USACE GPR Report, Syllabus, July 1998; Click
here to view).
1991 U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers developed another plan, a 10-year level of
protection plan calling for the construction of a “high
flow” channel, sixteen miles long between Spring Creek
upstream to Steubner-Airline Road. Estimated cost: $48
million (1991 dollars). HCFCD reported it was not
implemented because of concerns regarding environmental
impacts and recurring maintenance problems caused by
constructing the “high shelf” through lenses of sugar
sand plus the potential adverse flooding impact on
Spring Creek.
Vansickle, Michelson & Klein, Inc.
published Cypress Creek Upper Regional Detention
Study. The study was prepared for HCFCD. A main
objective of this study was to analyze the impact of
known improvement projects within the upper regions of
the Cypress Creek watershed and to identify possible
first phase projects that would eliminate Cypress Creek
sheet overflows into Addicts Reservoir (Note: It is
CCFCC’s understanding that Addicks Reservoir was
originally constructed based on a design which
accommodated this overflow). The known
improvement projects identified for the upper watershed
were generally found to reduce 100-year flood levels
along Cypress Creek. The report evaluated several
alternative plans of improvement to eliminate the
overflow from the main channel of Cypress Creek, the
hydrologic and hydraulic impact to the downstream flows
and flood levels along Cypress Creek, and the mitigation
plan to offset these impacts. The report recommended
that a 7,500-acre levee be constructed upstream of
Katie-Hockley Road (Alternative 3) The source document
said this plan effectively eliminated Cypress Creek
overflow and mitigated any adverse effects on downstream
flood flows. This plan is consistent with the Master
Drainage Plan; however, it has not been implemented by
HCFCD (Source: Flood
Protection Planning Grant Application, March 30,
2000, submitted by HCFCD in association with CivilTech
Engineering, Inc. to the Texas Water Development Board).
1990+ HCFCD constructed the
Iverness Forest Levee Project consisting of a one-mile
levee embankment, an internal drainage system of
detention basins and pumping station, mitigating
channelization, and environmental enhancements. It
provided protection for 136 homes
(Source: Water Ways,
published by HCFCD, October 1997).
1986 The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) presented a plan covering channel
construction between the mouth of Spring Creek and U.S.
Highway 290 for protection against 10-year frequency
floods. It included recreation and environmental
mitigation plans. Right-of-way to accommodate the
channel ranged from 150 to 350 feet wide. The initial
cost estimate was $125 million (1986 dollars).
Congressman Bill Archer successfully got the project
approved and funded in the Water Resources Act of l988
(PL 100-676). Twelve years later, USACE reported that
Harris County no longer supported the 1986 plan because
they “desire a project which is less structural and more
environmentally pleasing.” HCFCD said the plan was not
implemented “due to concerns that a wider Cypress Creek
would cause adverse flooding impacts on Spring Creek,”
and that “as time went on, the federal economic
justification could no longer be met.”
On November 18, 1986, the HCFCD
Director submitted a letter to Commissioners Court
advising that the TC&B master drainage plan was nearing
completion and “has been performed in conformance with
the criteria established by the District’s drainage
policy for the Cypress Creek Watershed” and “will
present a reasonable approach to stormwater management
and will include a regional detention plan in
conjunction with…”
The letter recommended and
Commissioners Court approved a $4,000 per acre
contribution (impact fee) to be collected from
developers in Cypress Creek watershed noting,
“Adjustments to this amount may be necessary to take
into fact inflation and actual project costs”…"The
regional program for the Cypress Creek watershed will
provide a drainage system utilizing all present
facilities”… and “although the regional detention
facilities will be large in size, [they will] have [the]
potential to serve as recreational sites.”
1985
Floodplain mapping for
FEMA adoption was officially approve in September and
published in the FEMA Flood Insurance Study.
1984 Turner Collie & Braden
published the HCFCD Master Drainage Plan for Cypress
Creek Watershed (July 1984). A report which covered
Phase I and II of the plan stated that it reflected
conditions existing in the watershed in l982. Note:
This was the most current drainage plan for the
watershed as of 2003 and was approved as such by
the Harris County Commissioners Court. It provides a
100-year flood event level of protection based on full
urban development of the watershed. Construction cost of
the recommended plan is $732 million (l984 dollars). The
basic mitigation approach recommended is detention and
emphasizes that priority be placed on acquisition of the
land needed for detention.
HCFCD implemented a stormwater
detention policy requiring new developments greater than
ten acres to construct on-site detention ponds designed
such that the peak run-off would not exceed that which
would occur during a 100-year storm under
pre-project/undeveloped conditions. A land-use
inventory was performed to identify developments build
prior to 1984 in order to classify the developed areas
as having on-site detention or no detention
1982 Harris County
Commissioners Court authorized a master watershed
drainage and environmental study plan prepared by Turner
Collie & Braden. In a grant proposal to the Texas Water
Development Board eighteen years later, HCFCD stated
“the primary purpose of this study was to develop a
master drainage plan designed to facilitate future
development without adversely impacting existing
developed areas in the watershed.”
It further stated that implementation had not occurred due to insufficient
money and that the plan contained components, “that are
not feasible or publicly acceptable.”
1980 Harris County
Commissioners Court approved a Policy Statement for
Flood Control Improvements and an Outline of Stormwater
Management Design Criteria. In a letter from HCFCD
transmitting the policy statements, the court was
provided a briefing on county-wide drainage matters. The
letter stated that when Harris County joined the
National Flood Insurance Program, “It became the
District’s goal to provide adequate flood control
measures to eliminate the 100-year floodplain from areas
outside the banks of the drainage channels in the
county’s developed areas. Where development had not yet
created flood-prone situations within the l00-year flood
plain, the District’s objective is to provide facilities
adequate to accommodate new development so that existing
development will not be subjected to flooding by a
l00-year event.”
(Source: Letter dated November 20, 1980, to the Harris
County Commissioners Court from James B. Green, P.E.
Director, HCFCD). (Click to
view letter
and the attached Policy Statement Exhibit).
1975 Land subsidence
centered in southern Harris and Galveston Counties had
been accelerating at an alarming rate for a decade.
Industrial groundwater usage was a major culprit. The
possibility of moving NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center
from the Clear Lake area was being seriously
considered. This phenomenon led to the creation of the
Houston-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District (now
called Houston-Galveston Subsidence District) by the
Texas Legislature in May 1975 with the authority to
regulate withdrawal of underground water from the area’s
aquifers.
1973 Harris County became
a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
and adopted flood plain regulations relative to the 1%
(100-year) flood plain.
1950s HCFCD channelized and
straightened thirty miles of Cypress Creek from its
confluence with Spring Creek to U.S. Highway 290. In the
ensuing years, erosion and deposition of the “sugar
sands” through which the creek flows caused the majority
of the creek to “take a natural, undisturbed
appearance.” (Source: Water
Ways, published by HCFCD, October 1997).
1946
The Flood Control Act
of 1946 authorized and directed preliminary examinations
and surveys for flood mitigation on Cypress Creek.
1937 The Texas Legislature
created the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD).
The Flood Control Act of 1937
authorized flood mitigation efforts on the San Jacinto
River and its tributaries. Cypress Creek is a tributary
of the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.
|
